The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1887-11-11
THE WRIT DENIED.
Decision Of the United States Su-
preme Court.
No Federal Question Involved in the An.
Hfchists' Appeal-The Highest Judicial
Tribunal Reviews the Case and De.
mics the Application.

Its decision to-day in the matter OF the ap-
plication Tor q writ of error in the cases OF
the seven Anarchists now confined in the
Cook County jail in Chicago, awaiting their
execution on November IL The request for
the writ was denied.
The following is the opinion:
Supreme Court Of the United States. October
term, 1857, ex parte. In the matter OF August
Spies, Michael Schwa,, Oscar Neebe Samuel
Fielden, Albert r. Parsons, George Engel,
Adolph Fischer and Louis Lingg, petitioners.
application for the allowance of a writ of error
TO the Supreme Oourt of the State of illinois,
When, IS in this case, application is made TO rs
on the suggestion of one OF oui number to
whom similar application had been previously
addressed for tie allowance OF a writ of error
TO the highest court of STATE under section
suo of the revised statutes it is our duty to as
certain not only whether any question review
able here was made and decided in the
proper court below. but whether il is of a char
ecter to justify us in bringing the judgment
here for denomination. In our opinion the
writ ought not to be allowed by the court if it
appears from the face of the record that The de-
cision Of the Federal question which is com
planned Of was SO plainly right IS not TO require
argumene- and especially If 1t is in accordance
with our own well considered judgments in
similar cases. That is in effect what was done
in Twtchell VS.. The Commonwealth, Wall,
S23, when the writ ives refused because the
questions presented by the record were no
longer subjects of discussion. although II they
had been in the opinion OF the court ''oper," 1t
wouh have been allowed.
When. under section of our rule G. a motion
10 affirm is united wi,h morton to dismi s for
want of Jurisdiction, the practice has been 10
grant the motion 10 affirm, wl.n the question on
which our jurisdiction depends was so man
testly decided right that the case ought not
hka Irrh 4 h
Us. Rarmoning, iyS United States 1874, 1876,
Church VS.. Kelsey, 1el United States, esq.
The propriety of adopting similar rule upon
motions IN open court for the allowance of
q writ is apparent for certainly we would
not be justified as court in sending out
writ TO bring up for review a Judgment of
the highest court of a State when IL is s,,-
parent on the face of the record that il
woulh be our duty to grant motion 10 affirm as
soon rs it was made in proper form. In the
present case we have had the benefit of argu-
ment in support of the application, ana while
counselh have not deemed it their duty 10 90 fully
into the werlts OF the questions involved they
have shown us distinctly what the decisions
were of which they complain nlid how the uues-
lions arose In this way we able to deter
mine as court in session whether the alleged
errors are snch as to justify us in bringing the
case here for review. We proceed then 10 con-
slider what the questions ar in which. II it ex-
ISIS at al, our jurisdiction depends.
me particular provisions of the Constitution
OF the United States on which counsel rely are
found in articles 4, 3 6 and II of the amend
ments rs follows: Article THE ,5cht OF The
people 10 be secure IL their persons. houses.
papers and effects against unreasonable
searches ana seizures SHAH hot be violated.
Article NO person snail be com
PEELED In any criminal case 20 be q witness
against eimsef, nor be deprived OF life, liberty
or property without due process OF law. Art
icie TIN all criminal prosecutions the
tccnsec shall ENJOY The right 20 speedy
and rGoiic trial by "a impartial jury Of
The STATE ana district wherein the crime
shaii nave peeh committed which district shall
nave Deea previously ascertained by law. Arti-
e.e Ia section mo State shall make or enforce
any laE Thich snail abTidSe the privileges or
Anmahines oil cltiZens ei the United States; nor
Shiiii any state deprive any person OF life, lib
erty or property without due process of law.
mat the hrst Ten articles OF amendment were
cot intended to limit the powers OF the State
governments IN respect TO their own Citizens
Dit 20 operate on the National Government
Sione- was Geeided naore than half
century ago. and that decision has been
steadlly adhered 10 since
III is eontended, however, in arguing that
though originally the first ten amendments
were ADOPTED as limitations on Federal power,
get IN SO lar as they secure and recognize
fundamental rights, common law rights of the
man. tney make them privileges and immuni-
ties OF the man as citizen Of the United States
and can rot be abridged by State under the
four'eenth amendment; IA other words while
the ten amendments as limitations on power
only apply to the Federal Government and not
TO the state, yet SO far as they declare or
recognize r1ghts OF persons, these rights are
ueTs as eitlzehs OF the United States, and
the Foarteen'h amendment as TO such
rights limits State power as the ten
amendments had limited the Federal power.
a. also contended that the provision
OF the Fourteenta amendment which declareS
that no State shall deprive any person of life,
liberty or property without due process of law,
implies that every person charged with crime
In state shall be entitled to trial by an i'm
partial jury ard shall not be compelled to testi-
~ against himself The objections are in brief:
rEsl, mat statute OF the State, as construed
oy the court deprived the petitioners OF an i'm
partial Jury; and second, that Spies was COM
peeled TO give evidence against himself. Before
considering whether the Constitution OF the
Ohited States has the effect which IS Claimed,
u Is proper 10 inquire whether the Fed |
eral questions rehed on are facts OF this
record one statute to which objection is made
was approved March IL. 1874, and has been in
force since July OF that year The complaint
q that the trial court acting under this statute
anu IN accordance with ITS requirements COM |
peiled the petitioners. against their viii, to sub
mt 20 a triai py a jury tnat was not impartial
ana thus deprived them OF one OF the funda- |
mental rights which they had as citizens OF the
United States under the National Constitution |
nnd II the sentence oil the court Is carried into
execution they Wall be deprived VI their lives |
without due process OF law"
IN Hopt VS.. Utah. 10 u 3, s3s. it was &c |
1aeo py TINS court that when challenge by |
; ceiendant In criminal action to juror for
pas, actuai or implied is disaiiowed and the
luro. IS 'hereupoh peremptoriy challenged by
inc oeienaant and excused, and competent
Juror Is ootaineo IN ms place. no INJURY is done